Lancaster County Council approves first reading of new "retreat center" use after applicant-backed changes

Lancaster County Council voted to approve on first reading an amendment to the county’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to add a new “retreat center” use for agricultural (AR) and rural residential (RR) zoning districts, adopting the applicant’s version of the ordinance at the request of the applicant and following discussion of buffers, parking and lodging types.

The change would create a new UDO section describing retreat-center activities — indoor/outdoor spiritual, cultural or educational programming; short-term and in-residence lodging (lodge, tiny homes, cabins); shared kitchens; event-venue and wedding uses; staff residences; and accessory services such as waste management and small on-site retail that serves guests. Planning staff described proposed density limits (for example, maximum cabins/tiny homes per acre and limits on main buildings) and parking options during the presentation to council. The applicant asked that the ordinance text reflect existing AR/RR practice regarding buffers and use the event-venue parking standard of one space per 500 square feet.

Why this matters: The UDO change creates a new, codified use category that county property owners and prospective operators can use without pursuing a site-specific rezoning. Council members debated how to balance flexibility for applicants with protections for neighboring properties — chiefly whether to require a planted buffer along parcel boundaries and how to set parking standards.

Key details and council discussion

- Staff presentation: Allison Hardin (planning staff) summarized the draft language and explained the rationale for limits on lodging density and for two parking options: an assembly-hall standard the planning commission recommended (1 space per 80 sq. ft.) and the event-venue standard (1 per 500 sq. ft.) that the applicant proposed.

- Applicant presentation: Adam Thomas, the property owner and applicant, described the proposed use on his 300-plus–acre property and said the development would "encounter creation, you'll encounter fellowship with others, and you'll encounter your creator," adding that the proposal places lodging and activity areas inward and that existing natural separation on his site would limit impacts to neighbors. He told council that because AR and RR currently require no buffer, he preferred the ordinance to follow that baseline.

- Buffers: Planning Commission recommended Type B buffers (a more opaque planted buffer) between retreat uses and neighboring residential uses; the applicant opposed added buffer requirements. Council members discussed whether buffers should scale with parcel size and whether sliding-scale setbacks should be developed by staff and the planning commission.

- Parking: Staff noted the assembly-hall parking (1 per 80 sq. ft.) and the event-venue parking (1 per 500 sq. ft.). The applicant and some council members argued the event-venue metric would better preserve a rural character and avoid excessive paved parking.

Council action and outcome

- Council amended the original staff version by adopting the applicant’s version of the ordinance (which removed the buffer requirement and used the event-venue parking standard) and then voted to approve first reading as amended. The vote was recorded as unanimous by the council present.

What remains

- Planning staff and the planning commission may return with more detailed language on buffers, including a possible sliding scale tied to parcel size, on the second reading. Council identified that it could still add or refine details between first and second reading. The applicant may proceed through the required subsequent administrative steps if second reading and final adoption follow.

Speakers

- Allison Hardin, Planning staff (presenter) - Adam Thomas, property owner / applicant - Council member Harper (mover of initial motion) - Council member McGriff (second) - Council member Mosteller (moved amendment adopting applicant version) - Council member Luis (participated in debate) - Council member Graham (participated in debate)

Authorities

- ordinance: "Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Chapter 2 (district development standards) and Chapter 5 (use regulations)" (referenced by the ordinance amendment and staff presentation)

Actions

- {"kind":"ordinance_first_reading","identifiers":{"ordinance_number":"2025-51948"},"motion":"Approve first reading of ordinance to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to add 'retreat center' use (applicant's version as amended)","mover":"Council member Harper","second":"Council member McGriff","vote_record":[],"tally":{"yes":7,"no":0,"abstain":0},"legal_threshold":{"met":true,"notes":"First reading; ordinance requires subsequent readings before adoption"},"outcome":"approved","notes":"Council adopted applicant's version (no buffer; event-venue parking standard) on first reading"}

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion: council debated buffer requirements, parking standards, lodging densities, and how to craft rules to work for future applicants beyond the present property. - Decision: first reading approved as amended to adopt the applicant’s version; further refinements may be addressed at later readings.

Clarifying details

- Minimum parcel to qualify under the proposed text: 20 acres (staff noted a 20-acre minimum in the draft language). - Applicant’s site context: applicant said his parcel is ~300 acres and the retreat area would sit centrally with substantial natural separation from neighbors. - Parking standards under consideration: staff/planning commission recommended 1 space per 80 sq. ft. for assembly halls; applicant requested 1 space per 500 sq. ft. (event venue standard).

Proper names

- Lancaster County (agency) - Unified Development Ordinance (document)

Provenance

- {"block_id":"block_755.315","local_start":0,"local_end":200,"evidence_excerpt":"We have public hearing and first reading of ordinance 20 20 five-nineteen 48. Ordinance title and ordinance to amend the Unified Development Ordinance chapter 2, district development standards, use chart and chapter five's use regulations to add a new use retreat center and regulations for retreat center in agriculture and residential zoning districts.","reason_code":"topicintro"} - {"block_id":"block_2454.505","local_start":0,"local_end":200,"evidence_excerpt":"So the original motion that was on the floor was for the staff version. That has effectively been killed by the amendment now because you've adopted an entirely different version of the ordinance.","reason_code":"topicfinish"}

Topics

- {"name":"land use/zoning","justification":"Article covers a UDO amendment to add a new use and changes to development standards","scoring":{"topic_relevance":1.00,"depth_score":0.90,"opinionatedness":0.05,"controversy":0.45,"civic_salience":0.85,"impactfulness":0.70,"geo_relevance":1.00}}

Community relevance

- Geographies: Lancaster County (project will be allowed in AR/RR across the county) - Impact groups: nearby rural residents, property owners, event venue operators

Searchable tags

["UDO","retreat center","rezoning","planning commission","Lancaster County"]

Salience

- overall:0.70, overall_justification:"New land-use category with countywide applicability; moderate local impact and community interest"